St. Emerentiana - by Phineas

 St. Emerentiana

     In recognizing the teachings of the Patristic Fathers and the Faith of those early Christians, I cannot let pass the comments you made in two successive homilies relative to the death of St. Emerentiana who was martyred for the faith, ostensibly, “while still a catechumen”. 

     The Canon of Saints is infallible, but you are tragically wrong in implying that the historical narratives of the Roman Martyrology are reliable testimonies in detailing the circumstances surrounding a particular’s martyr’s death; and it is simply against the faith to believe that there are saints in heaven who did not receive sacramental baptism (under the New Law). While we believe with Divine and Catholic Faith that every canonized martyr is in heaven, the particular facts and circumstances surrounding their martyrdom is neither infallible nor necessarily reliable. 

     Take note of Butler’s prefatory remarks concerning the martyrdom of Emerentiana’s foster sister, St. Agnes, commemorated on January 21: 

"The following relation is taken from Prudentius . . . and other fathers. Her [Agnes’] acts are as ancient as the seventh century; but not sufficiently authentic; nor are those given us in Chaldaic by Stephen Assemani of a better stamp. They contradict St. Ambrose and Prudentius in supposing that she finished her martyrdom by fire." 

     Now, according to Saint Ambrose, Prudentius and Father Butler, Saint Agnes was beheaded. Others had said she was burned to death. Further, when I went to “Catholic Online Saints”, this is what I found on St. Emerentiana: 

“Martyr of Rome, in some traditions the foster sister of St. Agnes, stoned to death when discovered praying at Agnes’ grave. Emerentiana was possibly martyred elsewhere. Her cult was confined to local calendars in 1969. According to the legend of St. Agnes, Emerentiana was her foster-sister. Some days after the burial of St. Agnes, Emerentiana, who was still a catechumen, went to the grave to pray, and while praying she was suddenly attacked by the pagans and killed with stones. Her feast is kept on 23 January.” 

     Now, if “Some traditions hold to the legend that Emerentiana was possibly martyred elsewhere”, who is to say that she was necessarily stoned to death and who is to say that she died without water baptism? Without doubting for a moment the fact of her martyrdom, how much “faith” can we place in the alleged“facts” (legends) surrounding her baptismal status and the circumstances of her death? 

     Despite the inconclusive and unreliable nature of this narrative, the fact is thatnowhere does the narrative say that she died without water baptism. But there is one fact that we are absolutely certain of: St. Emerentiana died a Baptized Catholic. How do we know this? 

     Pope Benedict XII, Benedictus Deus, 1336, ex cathedra, on the souls of the just receiving the Beatific Vision: “By this edict which will prevail forever, with apostolic authority we declare… the holy apostles, the martyrs, the confessors, virgins, and the other faithful who died after the holy baptism of Christ had been received by them, in whom there was nothing to be purged… and the souls of children departing before the use of free will, reborn and baptized in the same baptism of Christ, when all have been baptized… have been, are, and will be in heaven…” 

     Three times Benedict XII mentions baptism; and no one can enjoy the Beatific Vision without being “reborn (born again) and baptized in the same baptism of Christ”, meaning without being reborn in the baptism of the blood redemption – through water and the spirit – one and inseparable. All who have been reborn and baptized in the holy Baptism of Christ [all who have received the merit of His Blood Redemption in the Laver of Redemption] in whom there is nothing to be purged (the justified) are and will be in heaven. 

I would say that is what’s called “determinate and unalterable” evidence. 

     But the most abused and my favorite “Unbaptized Martyr” of all time has to be the soldier who was martyred with St. Alban. We pick up the narrative here: 

     St. Bede: “As he reached the summit, holy Alban asked God to give him (Alban) water, and at once a perennial spring bubbled up at his feet…” Butler: “The sudden conversion of the headsmen occasioned a delay in the execution. In the meantime the holy confessor (Alban), with the crowd, went up the hill… There Alban falling on his knees, at his prayer a fountain sprung up, with water whereof he refreshed his thirst… Together with St. Alban, the soldier, who had refused to imbrue (stain) his hands in his blood, and had declared himself a Christian, was also beheaded, being baptized in his own blood.” 

     As a result of St. Alban’s prayer, a miraculous fountain of water sprang up and St. Alban “refreshed his thirst”. Yes indeed, on the way to his death, St. Alban prayed for water because he was “thirsty”, and his prayer was miraculously granted. God was not about to let him down. “I thirst”.

     Now, call me reckless, but I have a hunch that a few drops of that life saving water were sprinkled in the general direction of a certain soldier, who had just received a crash course in the Faith, with these barely audible words: “I baptize thee…” And the soldier, who refused to partake in the execution of this Holy Saint, the Saint who had given him eternal life, proclaimed his Faith before God and men and received his second baptism – the crown of eternal glory - Holy Martyrdom. 

And God would not have it any other way. 

     The fact is that not all of the deeds described in the Acts of the Martyrs or the Roman Martyrology are necessarily accurate, consistent, or complete (and definitely not infallible); therefore, we have every right to question any particular narrative. Our sole purpose is to protect the words of Christ and the doctrines of the Church, our infallible guides to truth. 

     But if my arguments are not convincing, let’s turn to a magisterial source and some authentic scholarship on the historical accuracy concerning the events surrounding the saints in the Martyrology: 

     Pope St. Gelasius, Decretal, 495: “Likewise the deeds of the holy martyrs… [which] with remarkable caution are not read in the holy Roman Church… because the names of those who wrote them are entirely unknown… lest an occasion of mockery might arise.” 

Ruh-roh.... 

     I’m sorry Father, but do you not risk causing scandal by reading (or summarizing), in the holy Roman Church, the unreliable historical record of the deeds of the Holy Martyr St. Emerentiana or any other alleged “un-baptized martyr”, when the “names of those who wrote them are entirely unknown… lest an occasion of mockery might arise”? Should not this admonition of Pope St. Gelasius at least give you pause? 

     In his work The Age of Martyrs, the renowned Church historian Abbot Giuseppe Ricciotti wrote: “For guides we have appropriate documents. These, however, as we have already seen, are often uncertain and would lead us completely astray. Especially unreliable are the Acts or Passions of martyrs. 

Ruh-roh

     Donald Attwater, A Catholic Dictionary, p. 310: “An historical statement in the ‘Martyrology’ as such has no authority… A number of entries in the Roman Martyrology are found to be unsatisfactory when so tested.” 

     The deeds of the holy martyrs, to include (and especially) the “Acts or passions of the martyrs” are not read in the Holy Roman Church because the authors are “entirely unknown”, the acts are “often uncertain”, they could lead people astray, they could lead to “an occasion of mockery”, they prove “unsatisfactory when so tested” and; therefore, any historical statement in the Martyrology as such has no authority whatsoever. 

     Isn’t it revealing that so many can attest, with seeming divine and Catholic faith, to the historical accuracy of the often unreliable and untested events surrounding a particular martyr’s death, yet when it comes to the ex cathedra dogmatic definition by Pope Eugene IV (Cantate Domino, Council of Florence) they sing a different tune: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that …the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation …and that nobody can be saved, … even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church”. 

     That is what the Church teaches – anything less or any teaching which renders this dogma meaningless, superfluous or doubtful is condemned. 

     Another fact to consider is that Catechumens did not necessarily lose their “catechumen” status after baptism because it was a custom that only after baptism were the deeper truths of the Catholic faith revealed (i.e., the nature of the Eucharist). It is reported that St. Ambrose himself was a “catechumen” for 10 years after his Baptism (he was made a Bishop immediately upon his conversion and baptism). 

     Listen to St. Ambrose inform his catechumens of the instruction they will receive now that they had been received into the Church as members of the baptized Faithful: 

St. Ambrose, (4th Century) Bishop and Doctor: “I shall now begin to instruct you on the sacrament you have received; of whose nature it was not fitting to speak to you before this; for in the Christian what comes first is faith. And at Rome for this reason those who have been baptized are called the faithful (fideles).” (The Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers, Regnery, Co: Chicago, IL, 1963, Vol. 4, p. 5.) 

    The next time we meet, we will review the intriguing narrative of St. Ambrose and Valentinian II and the liberal's errant claim that Valentinian is the quintessential example of an early Church Father disclosing the teaching of Baptism of Desire.  In fact, we will see just the opposite....

Phineus....